1. Certatin installation on Linux requirest a restart for the services unlike the restart for windows. In windows assume
the installation of certain CD / DVD writing application requires a restart.
2. For a linux system there are a range of excellent open source applications that can make linux perfectly steady,
stealth to the outside world, unlike windows where one requires a pruchase of excellent applications.
3. Command line has always ruled unlike the click-click.
4. Update of linux is not always necessary unless it is a crtical update unlike windows.
5. Not all can manage a linux server unlike the windows.
10 Response(s) to Things I can do in Linux that I can't do on Windows.
Ravi Lall Says:
The idea of free software is a wonderful abstraction, but linux is really for the egghead crowd. If you;re not a web developer or have a degree in computer sciences, then it's unusable.
I recently tried to work with Fedora but found it extremely slow -- why are Linux boot and shutdown times so long?
Read the article: "installing applications: Linux's hidden shame."
Multimedia support is non-existent. Try and play a movie, or visit a flash website in Linux and you'll realize the Linux is stuck in 1995.
As for security -- does anyone know what's in all those RPM's they're downloading?
Windows is democratic and usable - children can use it. I don't want to know how a car works to be able to drive somewhere. Windows is fast, stable, and does everying you want to do with a computer. And yes, OpenOffice even works on Windows.
P.s. I've been working with Apache on Windows courtesy of XAMPP, but am moving to IIS -- only because Apache has woefully inadequate documentation.
Schmedley Schmedlington Says:
To Ravi:
I am not an egghead and I have had no problems with any of the various and sundry distributions I've installed and tried. Perhaps if you would try something other than Redhat.
To answer your question about rpm files--yes, I know what is in them and where they've come from. (Nice bit of obfuscation, by the by)
Documentation is all over the web, from howto's to user groups: all one needs to do is go to google and start typing!
I use both Windows and Linux; each does its task well; nothing more, nothing less. Yoda-sama Says:
Ravi Lall, you're description of Linux is more "woefully inadequate" than your Apache documentation. Stuck in 1995 HOW??? All those things you mentioned are just plain wrong, I watch all my movies under linux now and flash works wonderfully. Why does it matter if Linux takes longer to boot and shutdown (granted there are ways to improve that) when, by design, you should be able to go longer between reboots with Linux than you can in Windows... I don't really care if it takes a number of seconds more to boot if I was able to wait an extra 5+ weeks to do it. And what you say about RPMs... Why the heck are you installing Fedora anyways? If you're going to try to critique Linux on how hard it is to run or install (or assume how smart a person is expected to be to use it) why are you not using a distribution aimed more at user friendliness than Fedora is. Ubuntu seriously comes to mind here. To be a little clearer for you on why I think your complaint about RPM is pointless, Ubuntu (and of course Debian, on which it is based) uses a much different package manager than Red Hat variants do, and in my humble opinion, a VASTLY superior one. Installing and updating programs through Ubuntu is not the fuzzy and secretive mess that you find under Windows; it is really a joy to install stuff under Debian-based Linux these days everything is clearly defined and installs without the need to reboot, so you can stay up to date without destabilizing your system. And not to be too mean to Windows, but what exactly is democratic about it (perhaps you meant capitalist)? Anton Says:
My wife and my kids use linux. I'm not sure Ravi knows what he thinks he knows. Try more than one distribution. Ubuntu focuses on the end user experience, and may be more suitable for someone new to linux. As for his complaints: installing apps in a .deb based system is far easier than anything Microsoft has come up with so far; bootup and shutdown times can be tweaked; multimedia support is adequate, flash is fully supported by Adobe; as for the "does anyone know what is in all those RPM's they're downloading?" wow, you sure seem happy to use a trojan / virus / spyware afflicted operating system. Do you know what is in all those exe's and msi's? What a straw-man. Ushi Says:
Ravi Lall, I'm sorry to say, but you are an idiot. Thanks to Yoda-sama, I need not do a point-by-point rebuttal of your moronic comment. As I type, I'm synchronizing my Nokia smartphone to my Dell laptop running Ubuntu Feisty via bluetooth that worked out of the box. And no, I'm not using ridiculously overblown Nokia PC Suite and, God forbid, Outlook Express. Instead V-cards microformats and Evolution cut the mustard just right. This is just a random example for you to realize how far ahead desktop Linux has moved since your unfortunate encounter with Fedora. This isn't 1995 indeed. So get on with the times: RedHat, much like most RPM-based distributions, sucks. Go order Ubuntu disks online free of charge, and at least try booting in Live CD mode before making statements about desktop Linux in the year of 2007. As an aside, I have been using Linux on my desktop since mid-1999, and the very thought of running buggy insecure and inefficient horror of an OS from Microsoft just makes me want to laugh uncontrollably. Cheers! Ushi Says:
Ravi Lall, I'm sorry to say, but you are an idiot. Thanks to Yoda-sama, I need not do a point-by-point rebuttal of your moronic comment. As I type, I'm synchronizing my Nokia smartphone to my Dell laptop running Ubuntu Feisty via bluetooth that worked out of the box. And no, I'm not using ridiculously overblown Nokia PC Suite and, God forbid, Outlook Express. Instead V-cards microformats and Evolution cut the mustard just right. This is just a random example for you to realize how far ahead desktop Linux has moved since your unfortunate encounter with Fedora. This isn't 1995 indeed. So get on with the times: RedHat, much like most RPM-based distributions, sucks. Go order Ubuntu disks online free of charge, and at least try booting in Live CD mode before making statements about desktop Linux in the year of 2007. As an aside, I have been using Linux on my desktop since mid-1999, and the very thought of running buggy insecure and inefficient horror of an OS from Microsoft just makes me want to laugh uncontrollably. Cheers! Yoda-sama Says:
Ravi Lall, you're description of Linux is more "woefully inadequate" than your Apache documentation. Stuck in 1995 HOW??? All those things you mentioned are just plain wrong, I watch all my movies under linux now and flash works wonderfully. Why does it matter if Linux takes longer to boot and shutdown (granted there are ways to improve that) when, by design, you should be able to go longer between reboots with Linux than you can in Windows... I don't really care if it takes a number of seconds more to boot if I was able to wait an extra 5+ weeks to do it. And what you say about RPMs... Why the heck are you installing Fedora anyways? If you're going to try to critique Linux on how hard it is to run or install (or assume how smart a person is expected to be to use it) why are you not using a distribution aimed more at user friendliness than Fedora is. Ubuntu seriously comes to mind here. To be a little clearer for you on why I think your complaint about RPM is pointless, Ubuntu (and of course Debian, on which it is based) uses a much different package manager than Red Hat variants do, and in my humble opinion, a VASTLY superior one. Installing and updating programs through Ubuntu is not the fuzzy and secretive mess that you find under Windows; it is really a joy to install stuff under Debian-based Linux these days everything is clearly defined and installs without the need to reboot, so you can stay up to date without destabilizing your system. And not to be too mean to Windows, but what exactly is democratic about it (perhaps you meant capitalist)? Yoda-sama Says:
Sorry, I really don't know how I posted twice. I guess it happened when I tried to refresh the page... Oh well, I suppose anything worth saying is worth saying twice. :-D The Average White Guy Says:
One thing I can do on (well any OS)...count... You've got two #4's :)
-The Average White Guy
http://www.theaveragewhiteguy.com Rodh Says:
I don't know about the boot times, My Ubuntu, OpenSuse, and Knoppix all Boot way faster than my XP or Vista. As for usfullness and ease of use I would have to vote for Ubuntu over all of the Others I have tried. I am still trying other distros of Linux to find the one that is right for my needs. Windows is OK for some things but I have noticed that from XP to Vista the systems are showing more and more Linux like features for security. And in Windows 7 they are even more like Linux. Although they are not Linux, Windows is now doing security much like what Linux has been doing for Decades. The trend for more security in the operating system has made it a nicessity.
Leave a Comment [38.107.191.106, you are being tracked]
